Tag Archives: same sex couples

Gov. Christine Gregoire signed marriage equality into law in Washington state in a ceremony this afternoon. However, same-sex couples can’t begin marrying there yet pending a possibly ballot measure.

State Rep. Jamie Pedersen introduced his partner and future husband and their four children at the signing ceremony. He credited Gregoire with doing more to advance LGBT rights than anyone else in the country. Gregoire supported the state’s original domestic partnership law and anti-bullying legislation.

“This is a very proud moment,” Gregoire said before signing the bill. “I’m proud that our same-sex couples will not be treated as separate but equal. They will be equal.”

Opponents have two options. They can collect signatures to put the marriage-equality law on the ballot and attempt to repeal it. If the law goes on the ballot, marriage cannot start until after the November election and then only if the proposition fails.

Another option would be to put forth a constitutional amendment limiting marriage to one man and one woman. That option would take half the number of signatures to get on the ballot. But the law would go into effect in June, same-sex couples could get married and if the constitutional amendment passes, courts would have to decide if those marriages would remain legal. In California, 18,000 marriages are still considered valid even though Prop 8 stopped the additional marriage licenses from being issued in the state.

If signatures are not collected to stop marriage equality, the law goes into effect in June. In a referendum on Washington’s domestic partnership laws, voters upheld the law with 53 percent of the vote.

“If asked, the voters in Washington will say yes to equality,” Gregoire said.

As Rawlings continues to dig in his heels on marriage pledge, Prop 8 ruling serves as reminder of the impact one mayor can have

NOT GOING AWAY | LGBT protesters gathered outiside Dallas City Hall on Jan. 27 to call on Dallas Mayor Mike Rawlings to sign a pledge in support of same-sex marriage. This week LGBT advocates went inside City Hall, with five people speaking during public comments at the council's regular meeting. (John Wright/Dallas Voice)

With all the jubilation this week surrounding the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decision to strike down Proposition 8, I couldn’t help but take a look back at how far things have progressed in California.

Given recent events in Dallas, my thoughts tend to settle on a moment four years before Prop 8 made its way to the ballot. I think of the moment the marriage battle in California began to make national headlines.

It was 2004 when a mayor, realizing that tens of thousands of his citizens were officially discriminated against under California law, ordered the San Francisco County Clerk’s Office to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

While Mayor Gavin Newsom had no means to directly influence the law and while these marriages were eventually annulled by the state, his bold action created the environment necessary for real dialogue about equality.

What’s more, it taught our community the difference between elected leaders saying they support us and showing us their support.

Perhaps that is why Dallas’ Mike Rawlings’ refusal to join the mayors of almost every major U.S. city in signing a pledge in support of marriage equality, despite claiming to personally support it, continues to go over like a fart in a space suit.

If Rawlings were a Rick “Frothy Mix” Santorum or of similar ilk, his not signing the pledge would come as no surprise and we would have long since moved on.

But, this is a man who is supposed to be our friend. This is a man who campaigned hard for the Dallas LGBT vote. This is a man who has hosted a Pride reception at City Hall and tossed beads like an overgrown flower girl at last year’s Pride parade. For a man who claims to be so focused on making Dallas a “world class city,” signing the pledge just seems like a no-brainer.

Even more puzzling has been the way Rawlings has continued to defend his position — at first explaining that civil rights were a “partisan issue” that didn’t matter to the “lion’s share” of Dallas citizens, until that backfired magnificently, and now claiming that maintaining a position of neutrality has transformed him into some kind of weird ambassador for the queer community to the conservative religious communities of Dallas.

Apparently no one ever told Mayor Rawlings that when it comes to issues of civil rights, there is no such thing as a neutral position. To quote the Archbishop Desmond Tutu, “If you remain neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor.”

This is where our true frustration is coming from. Mayor Rawlings claims to understand marriage as a civil rights issue. He claims to understand that our community is discriminated against in thousands of state and federal laws, creating economic, educational, familial and health hardships for thousands of people in his city. Yet he chooses a position that serves only to validate those who would strip us of our humanity.

Perhaps he could have gotten away with this a few years ago, but in today’s world the majority of Americans now support equality and the LGBT community is no longer satisfied with neutrality, compromises or indefinite waiting. We are seeing evidence of this at every level of government, from City Hall to the White House where President Barack Obama stands to lose a significant percentage of the LGBT vote amid his prolonged “evolution” on marriage equality.

We understand that there is still much work to be done before full recognition of our equality becomes a reality. We know it will take time, resources and leadership to get us there. We don’t need our mayor to be as controversial as Gavin Newsom, but there is a way he can take a simple and powerful stand starting today.

It won’t cost the taxpayers a single penny. It won’t disrupt the business of the city for even a moment. It won’t even force people to change what they believe. It will, however, send a message to our state Legislature and to Congress that the people who live and work in Dallas, Texas, deserve equal treatment under the law.

It will tell 17,440 children in the state of Texas that their mommies and daddies are the same as the mommies and daddies of their peers. It will tell more than 14,000 individuals in our city who live in committed loving relationships that they will grow old with their partners in a city that respects them and values their contributions.

All our mayor has to do is pick up a pen and sign the pledge.

Daniel Cates is North Texas regional coordinator for GetEQUAL.

This article appeared in the Dallas Voice print edition February 10, 2012.

Dallas mayor says decision not to sign document puts him in position to advocate for LGBT equality among religious conservatives

STANDOFF | A pro-LGBT protester, left, squares off with an anti-gay counterprotester during a “Sign the Pledge” rally organized by GetEQUAL outside Dallas City Hall on Jan. 27. (John Wright/Dallas Voice)

Dallas Mayor Mike Rawlings said this week that he has no plans to sign a pledge in support of same-sex marriage anytime soon.

But Rawlings added that he believes his decision not to sign the pledge puts him in a position to advocate on behalf of LGBT civil rights among religious conservatives in Dallas.

Rawlings, who claims he personally supports legalizing same-sex marriage, has come under fire from the LGBT community for refusing to sign the pledge from the national group Freedom to Marry.

Rawlings has argued that the pledge — which now bears more than 100 signatures from mayors across the country — creates a divisive and partisan social issue that falls outside the mayor’s scope.

“I’m not going to sign it at this point, and part of it is because of the reaction that I’ve gotten throughout the whole community, and I realize whether people appreciate it or not, that I’m in a very interesting position where I can convene a lot of great dialogue because of the position that I’ve taken,” Rawlings told Dallas Voice during an exclusive interview in his office on Tuesday, Jan. 31. “After thinking about it, it’s probably the best thing that I kind of stick by my position here, but also do what I said in that meeting, which is work hard to figure out how I can best help this [the LGBT] community to gain the civil rights they need.”

Rawlings was referring to a meeting last Saturday, Jan. 28, which he attended with about 25 LGBT leaders at Resource Center Dallas, in response to his refusal to sign the pledge.

The meeting included several longtime local same-sex couples, including Jack Evans and George Harris, and Louise Young and Vivienne Armstrong.

Over the nearly two-hour meeting, which was at times heated and emotional, the couples and other LGBT leaders told Rawlings their stories and made their case as to why they feel the mayor should sign the pledge.

Outside the Resource Center following the meeting — which came the morning after about 100 LGBT protesters had gathered at City Hall — Rawlings wouldn’t rule out the possibility that he would change his mind. But 72 hours later, he hadn’t budged.

“I don’t see myself changing in the short-term,” Rawlings said Tuesday. “I think if there was another movement that I could understand what it was going to accomplish better, I might join that entity. It’s not like I’m going to be anti-public on this issue, but I think this pledge itself is something that has allowed me to be a broker of discussions now in the city of Dallas. There’s some silver lining in this cloud.”

Rawlings said he’s spoken to as many people who support his position as oppose it. But he acknowledged that when it comes to emails and messages on Facebook and Twitter, the vast majority have been in support of signing the pledge. Rawlings’ chief of staff, Paula Blackmon, said his office has received thousands of emails in the last two weeks.

“The other night [someone] said, ‘Thank you for not getting caught up in the hype of this thing, but I see you support marriage equality,’” Rawlings said. “And I said, ‘Yes, tell me about your position.’ And I realize there are so many people out there who really support what the LGBT community is trying to accomplish, but they are not interested in getting caught up into a polarizing movement.

“I’m very excited about the ability now to have this conversation,” he added. “I’m tired of talking about the pledge, but I think we’re just at the front end of having a conversation about LGBT civil rights.”

Rawlings has also said he wants to focus on substantive things he can accomplish as mayor to support LGBT civil rights.

But as of Tuesday, he said he hadn’t identified what those things will be. He said he plans to set up another meeting with Cece Cox, executive director and CEO of Resource Center Dallas, and others LGBT leaders to discuss specifics.

“There’s no question I’m a little ambivalent about my role now with the LGBT community, because I think that many people feel that I have sold them down the river, and I don’t want for political purposes to act like, ‘Oh, but I love you,’” Rawlings said. “I don’t want it to be disingenuous. I want to earn my respect in that community by putting my actions where my speech is on this.”

Rawlings said he thinks that for religious conservatives, civil marriage is secondary to the sacrament of religious marriage.

He said as mayor he wants to focus on “starting to de-mystify this for the faith-based community, and making sure we separate sacraments from civil rights.”

“If we ever are going to get to a better place, we’ve got to have room for people’s civil rights and personal religious beliefs in the same city,” he said.

“I’m a believer. I understand that tradition. I understand why that’s important. Some great conversations are starting to take place that I didn’t think I could ever have.”

This article appeared in the Dallas Voice print edition February 3, 2012.

“Today, I am proud to announce a new Equal Access to Housing Rule that says clearly and unequivocally that LGBT individuals and couples have the right to live where they choose. This is an idea whose time has come,” he said.

The new rules increase protection against housing discrimination by:

• prohibiting owners and operators of HUD-assisted or HUD-insured housing from discriminating against an applicant or occupant of a residence based on sexual orientation or gender identity;

• clarifying the definition of “family” to ensure that otherwise eligible participants in any HUD programs will not be excluded based on marital status, sexual orientation, or gender identity.

“I’m here this afternoon because our president and his administration believe the LGBT community deserves a place at the table — and also a place to call home. Each of us here knows that rights most folks take for granted are routinely violated against LGBT people,” Donovan said. “That’s why I’m proud to stand before you this afternoon and say HUD has been a leader in the fight — your fight and my fight — for equality. Over the last three years, we have worked to ensure that our housing programs are open. Not to some. Not to most. But open to all.”

The new regulations result from HUD under Donovan collecting data to better understand how same-sex couples suffer housing discrimination. His department has already worked to protect LGBT people under the Fair Housing Act.

Donovan is the first sitting cabinet secretary to address Creating Change.

Over on the main page you’ll find my story for Friday’s print edition about Dallas Mayor Mike Rawlings — who’ll be the target of an LGBT protest at City Hall on Friday night before meeting with LGBT leaders on Saturday. I also wanted to share the below statement that came across today from Lorie Burch, chairwoman of the North Texas GLBT Chamber of Commerce:

As chair of the North Texas GLBT Chamber of Commerce, I am disappointed by Mayor Mike Rawlings’ refusal to endorse the “freedom to marry” resolution. After all, as more than 100 American mayors (and six Texas mayors) know, marriage equality is a shot in the arm for business as well as for many business leaders and families like mine.

The vibrant gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender community drives business here and benefits all. Our chamber and our partners work hard to show that Dallas is truly a welcoming and inclusive city. Consider in the past two years, two national GLBT conferences held in Dallas earned an estimated $14 million for our local economy. Aren’t we competing with Houston and San Antonio for these dollars?

Our chamber members know that successful businesses have an unquenchable appetite for strong talent and performance. It’s no surprise that some of our top companies actively recruit and reward their openly LGBT workers and place them in key roles.

Few GLBT professionals eagerly await employment transfer with spouses and children to states and cities that deny equal legal protections, respect and stability. Same-sex couples will align their best interests to choose to live and work in places that show them full respect and equal treatment under the law they need for their families.

Our mayor has the chance to be a leader and portray Dallas as a city where all are welcome. In addition to top corporations, consider that our city is hard wired for entrepreneurs and small businesses that add so much to the economy. Many small business owners are part of the GLBT community; their families and livelihoods are directly hurt by the lack of marriage equality and the 1,100 protective federal laws that they are denied. We know marriage offers equal rights and responsibilities by assuring better health care access for spouses and children, benefits and insurance coverage, tax breaks and incentives. Most of all, this brings our community a stronger cultural fabric that does not discriminate nor honor inequality.

Mayor Rawlings is the leader of one of the top cities in the world. As his constituents, we rely on him to make decisions that are best for our businesses, our community, and our families. This is not about politics. It is about fundamental fairness and equality and any leader today should be proud to sign that pledge. Dallas deserves that kind of leadership, and so do the members of Texas’ largest GLBT business group.

As many of us are painfully aware by now, the list doesn’t include Dallas’ Mike Rawlings, who says he “personally” supports same-sex marriage but doesn’t sign things related to social issues that don’t directly impact city affairs. Read our latest story here. (It’s worth noting that since we broke this story Wednesday, it’s been picked up by both the Dallas Morning News, which ran it on the front page of the Metro section today, and the Dallas Observer.)

Mike Rawlings

Rawlings has also posted a statement on his Facebook page further explaining his position: “Upon taking office, I made a conscious decision to focus on issues that create a healthy, viable city and not on those that are partisan and social in nature. I was asked to pledge my support to ‘Mayors for the Freedom to Marry’ in an effort to pressure state and federal entities to legalize marriage for same-sex couples. I decided not to sign onto that letter because that is inconsistent with my view of the duties of the office of the mayor. To be a world class city, we must be inclusive towards all citizens, including the LGBT community. Personally, I support the LGBT movement and its efforts for equal rights that they deserve.”

Judging by the 63 comments on Rawlings Facebook post, the LGBT community isn’t satisfied. As of this morning, 173 people had signed a Change.org petition calling for Rawlings to sign the pledge. There’s also a Facebook page where you can find contact information for the mayor’s office.

Yodashkin also said that Houston Mayor Annise Parker is now a co-chair of the campaign, called Mayors for the Freedom to Marry. And while Austin’s Lee Leffingwell hadn’t been added to the published list, Yodashkin told me Thursday that Leffingwell had signed the pledge. Yodashkin also mentioned that New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg will speak at a press conference at 9:45 Eastern time this morning to formally unveil the campaign. Is it possible that Rawlings will have a change of heart and show up, pen in hand? We’ll find out, but for now the full text of the pledge is below.

An attorney in the Canadian justice department has moved to invalidate marriages performed in Canada for same-sex couples that live in places that do not recognize same-sex marriages. The government attorney made the argument in a divorce case filed in Toronto by a lesbian couple — one from Florida and one from England.

After the controversy gained international attention today, The Toronto Globe and Mail quoted a member of Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s government as saying they will consider amending the law to allow foreign couples who married in Canada to divorce in the country.

Lambda Legal issued a statement that said that Canadian marriages of same-sex couples are not in jeopardy. They wrote:

The position taken by one government lawyer in a divorce is not itself precedential. No court has accepted this view and there is no reason to believe that either Canada’s courts or its Parliament would agree with this position, which no one has asserted before during the eight years that same-sex couples have had the freedom to marry in Canada.

The country’s Justice Department maintained the position, however, that thousands of foreign couples who married in Canada are not married.

So I decided to play their nasty little game and I called the Canadian Consulate in Dallas, which could not answer my questions. I told them my story would center on the fate of the marriage of two couples in my office who were married in Canada. They forwarded my request to an information office. I’m waiting to hear from them.

Here’s what I want to know:

How will the affected couples be notified? One of the Dallas Voice couples was married in Toronto in 2003 and moved years ago. The marriage bureau there has no way of notifying them. Certainly this marriage cannot be invalidated without proper notification.

Will license fees be refunded? Certainly Canadian municipalities don’t want to be charged with fraudulently accepting fees for invalid licenses.

Will all travel expenses be refunded? Beyond being charged with fraudulently issuing these licenses, Canada has enjoyed a windfall of tourism. But if those trips were based on fraudulent promises, will gay and lesbian couples have to sue to be refunded for all travel expenses related to the scam the Canadian government perpetrated on American couples?

Further questions about your Canadian marriage can be answered by a local Canadian consulate or the embassy in Washington which can be found here. They’re anxiously awaiting your call.

Court cases on both coasts will impact marriage equality, while November elections could mean continued progress legislatively — or a time of backsliding

WAITING GAME | Members of the anti-Prop 8 legal team, from left, Therese Stewart, Chad Griffin, David Boies, Ted Butros and Ted Olson, speak during a news conference after a hearing in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals on Dec. 6, 2010, in San Francisco. Thirteen months later, the 9th Circuit judges are expected to issue opinions any day now on whether Prop 8 proponents have legal standing to appeal the trial court ruling, and whether Judge Vaughn Walker was correct in declaring the anti-gay-marriage amendment unconstitutional. (Eric Risberg/Associated Press)

Lisa Keen | Keen News Servicelisakeen@mac.com
Significant events are crowding the calendar for 2012, and each promises considerable drama and suspense for the LGBT community.
Here are the 10 most important, from a national perspective, to keep an eye on:

• The next decisions on Proposition 8: A three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals could release its opinions any day now. That’s “opinions,” plural.
Before the panel can rule on the constitutionality of California’s law banning marriage for same-sex couples, it must decide whether the Yes on 8 coalition has legal standing to appeal the federal court ruling that Prop 8 is unconstitutional, and it must decide whether there is any justification for Yes on 8’s request that the lower court decision be vacated.
The list of possible outcomes in Perry v. Brown — the case brought by the American Foundation for Equal Rights with famed attorneys Ted Olson and David Boies leading the charge — is mind-boggling. Whatever the results, any or all aspects could be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court immediately or they could be appealed to a full 9th Circuit bench and then to the Supreme Court.
But the panel’s decision will almost certainly have political impact, too. Not only will it affect the momentum of the marriage equality movement, it will almost certainly become fodder in the presidential campaigns.

• The decision, on appeal, in DOMA: A three-judge panel of the 1st Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals will hear oral arguments, perhaps as soon as early February, in a powerful challenge to the federal Defense of Marriage Act’s denial of federal benefits to same-sex married couples.
The challenge, referred to most often as Gill v. OPM, is actually three consolidated cases, two brought by Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders (GLAD) and one by the state of Massachusetts.
While there are other challenges under way to DOMA, this is the “big guns” challenge and the one most likely to reach the U.S. Supreme Court first. And while there is no deadline by which the panel must render its decision, it is likely to turn out one by year’s end.
Then, as with Proposition 8, the case could go to the full circuit court on appeal or straight to the Supreme Court. And, if the appeals court decision is rendered before the November elections, it will almost certainly provoke debate on the presidential campaign trail.

• Tammy Baldwin’s historic Senate bid: U.S. Rep. Tammy Baldwin is not the first openly gay person to run for U.S. Senate, but she’s the first who has a real chance of winning.
The daily Capital Times is already referring to her as the “likely” Democratic nominee to fill the seat being vacated by Democrat Herb Kohl. She doesn’t have a challenger for the nomination. But she will have a very tough battle against whomever the Republicans put on the ballot.
That’s because the battle will be for more than just one seat in the powerful U.S. Senate, which currently has a breakdown of 53 in the Democratic Caucus and 47 in the Republican. It will be part of a multi-state slugfest between the parties over control of the chamber, the Congress and the nation’s laws.

• The fight for the Senate: Polls at the moment indicate voters are inclined to vote for Democrats over Republicans next November. But that sentiment is not providing a large margin — one or two points — and it’s too soon to guess who the voters will blame for what 11 months from now.
But some Senate races — in addition to Tammy Baldwin’s — could have big consequences for LGBT voters.
In Virginia, a pro-gay former governor, Tim Kaine, will likely be pitted against an anti-gay former senator, George Allen. In Massachusetts, a pro-gay challenger, Elizabeth Warren, will almost certainly be the Democrat facing incumbent Scott Brown, whose attitude toward the community has been much less friendly.
And at least seven other states are expected to have competitive races for the Senate.

• Counting the “Gay Caucus”: U.S. Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., will be starting his 40th year in Congress when the House reconvenes Jan. 17. And it will be his last.
Frank announced last year that he is retiring at the end of his term. When he does, the clique of four openly gay members of Congress — Frank, Baldwin and Reps. Jared Polis and David Cicilline — will shrink by one. If Baldwin fails to win a Senate seat, it could shrink by half.
But there are prospects for adding members. Openly gay Wisconsin Democratic Assemblymember Mark Pacon is running for Baldwin’s U.S. House seat. And there are three other openly LGBT candidates for the U.S. House this November: Marko Liias from Seattle, Mark Takano from Riverside, Calif., and Kyrsten Sinema from Phoenix.
So, the number of openly gay members of Congress could go from four to as low as two (though zero is, technically, possible) to as high as seven. But no one will have the seniority and clout that Frank has had — and has used — to advance pro-gay measures.

• On hold, and on defense, in Congress: Pro-LGBT bills — such as efforts to repeal DOMA and pass the Employment Non-Discrimination Act — are not likely to see much action in 2012. But anti-gay measures might.
Why? Because it’s an election year and Republicans still control the House. And supportive Democrats will not be inclined to push controversial legislation during an election year, because it can detract from the focus on jobs and the economy, where most voters want focus right now.
Republicans, on the other hand, have often used hostile measures aimed at gays during election years as a way of putting Democrats on the spot with voters generally and gays specifically.

• Ballot battles abound: There will be important LGBT-related ballot measures before voters in several states this year.
North Carolina and Minnesota will vote on whether to ban same-sex marriage through amendments to their state constitutions. Voters in Maine will decide whether to strike down their existing ban on same-sex marriage.
LGBT activists in Washington State are gathering signatures to put a measure on that state’s ballot to gain marriage equality. A small group in California has until May 15 to gather more than 800,000 signatures to put a measure on the ballot there to repeal Proposition 8.
And the California Attorney General is expected to announce by Jan. 9 whether opponents of a new bill to include information about LGBT figures in history as part of the public school curriculum can begin circulating petitions to get a repeal measure on the ballot there.
All of these have the potential to be big, expensive and consequential battles.

• Fight for freedom of religion: The right-wing Alliance Defense Fund and others have a concerted effort under way in the courts to undermine laws prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.
Their strategy is to argue that people who discriminate against LGBT people do so because their religious beliefs require them to do so. Their question to the court is, “What rules? The First Amendment guarantee of free exercise of religion or the equal protection clause that says all citizens should be treated equally under the law?”
One case has already reached the U.S. Supreme Court and failed, but other cases — many other cases — are winding their way through nearly every circuit in the country. And their outcomes have the potential to chip away at the strength of the nation’s legal mandate that all people be treated equally.

U.S. Rep. Tammy Baldwin, left, President Barack Obama, right

• A fight for the White House: The difference for LGBT people between having President Barack Obama in the White House and President George W. Bush has been stark. So the consequences of November’s presidential election will also be profound.
Either Obama stays, and things continue to improve — in law and in society’s attitudes — or a new president is elected from a field of Republicans who seem, at times, to be vying for the mantle of most gay-hostile candidate.
In the latter case, LGBT people can expect progress to halt or backslide.

• Ah, the unpredictable: One of the bigger LGBT stories of 2011 happened in February, and it was one nobody expected: The Obama administration announced it considered DOMA unconstitutional and would not argue for its defense in most cases.
Another big story that no one expected: The Obama administration announced a major new diplomatic mission to push for protection of human rights for LGBT people around the world.

And given that Rep. Frank said in January 2011 he’d run for re-election in 2012, it was a surprise, in November, when he announced that he would not. As Frank pointed out, circumstances change.

Circumstances change, things change, people change. And often, they change each other.

But history marches on through time, and only in retrospect can any trajectory be certain as to where it’s going.

Sinead O’Connor ended her marriage to therapist Barry Herridge after 16 days. She said she knew the marriage was doomed just three hours after the ceremony.

But she still made it to 16 days. Maybe she needs to see a therapist. Oh wait … maybe she just needs to blame it on the gays.

But at least she will be able to end her marriage — no matter where she lives.

The Washington D.C. city council will take up a same-sex divorce ordinance in January, according to the Washington Post. The bill has the support of eight out of 13 city council members.

The problem, according to the city’s leaders, is that anyone can marry in D.C., but only residents can file for divorce there.

Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott has done his part to deny marriage to same-sex couples by preventing them from getting divorced. One case in which he intervened involves a Dallas couple that was married in Massachusetts. Currently all 50 states and D.C. have a residency requirement for divorce.

With the attorney general’s intervention, the Dallas couple remains married, three years after beginning the process of divorce.

Should the D.C. law pass, couples married in that city will be able to divorce there, no matter where they live. Abbott will be unable to prevent Texas couples married there from divorcing there.

But O’Connor will be able to get divorced wherever she lives. And her 16-day marriage will be considered “traditional.”